 |
|
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
http://www.securityfocus.com/brief/411
"We believe customers should feel safe shopping in our stores."
"We strongly recommend that [customers] carefully review their credit
card and debit card statements and other account information for
unauthorized use."
Uh, so which one is it then? :-P
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
On 26/10/2010 3:11 PM, Invisible wrote:
> http://www.securityfocus.com/brief/411
>
> "We believe customers should feel safe shopping in our stores."
>
> "We strongly recommend that [customers] carefully review their credit
> card and debit card statements and other account information for
> unauthorized use."
>
> Uh, so which one is it then? :-P
Both.
--
Best Regards,
Stephen
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
On 26-10-2010 17:23, Stephen wrote:
> On 26/10/2010 3:11 PM, Invisible wrote:
>> http://www.securityfocus.com/brief/411
>>
>> "We believe customers should feel safe shopping in our stores."
>>
>> "We strongly recommend that [customers] carefully review their credit
>> card and debit card statements and other account information for
>> unauthorized use."
>>
>> Uh, so which one is it then? :-P
>
> Both.
>
seconded.
"We believe customers should feel safe shopping in our stores." That
simply means that in a utopian society everybody will feel safe. You can
not blame them that reality is different. You might read it as if they
are actively trying to make the customer feel safer. Any human saying
that to you might actually mean that, but this is no human talking.
"We strongly recommend that [customers] carefully review their credit
card and debit card statements and other account information for
unauthorized use." Means: We know we make mistakes, we know that almost
nobody checks. Hence if we foul up, we blame the customer.
So, the former statement is void and the latter is a disclaimer. They in
no way contradict each other.
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
On 27/10/2010 9:11 PM, andrel wrote:
> On 26-10-2010 17:23, Stephen wrote:
>> On 26/10/2010 3:11 PM, Invisible wrote:
>>> http://www.securityfocus.com/brief/411
>>>
>>> "We believe customers should feel safe shopping in our stores."
>>>
>>> "We strongly recommend that [customers] carefully review their credit
>>> card and debit card statements and other account information for
>>> unauthorized use."
>>>
>>> Uh, so which one is it then? :-P
>>
>> Both.
>>
> seconded.
>
Thirded ;-)
--
Best Regards,
Stephen
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
On Wed, 27 Oct 2010 21:13:35 +0100, Stephen wrote:
> On 27/10/2010 9:11 PM, andrel wrote:
>> On 26-10-2010 17:23, Stephen wrote:
>>> On 26/10/2010 3:11 PM, Invisible wrote:
>>>> http://www.securityfocus.com/brief/411
>>>>
>>>> "We believe customers should feel safe shopping in our stores."
>>>>
>>>> "We strongly recommend that [customers] carefully review their credit
>>>> card and debit card statements and other account information for
>>>> unauthorized use."
>>>>
>>>> Uh, so which one is it then? :-P
>>>
>>> Both.
>>>
>> seconded.
>>
> Thirded ;-)
Fourthed. :-)
Jim
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
On 27/10/2010 10:06 PM, Jim Henderson wrote:
> Fourthed. :-)
Hell, just don't FORTH it. o_O
--
http://blog.orphi.me.uk/
http://www.zazzle.com/MathematicalOrchid*
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
On Wed, 27 Oct 2010 22:11:54 +0100, Orchid XP v8 wrote:
> On 27/10/2010 10:06 PM, Jim Henderson wrote:
>
>> Fourthed. :-)
>
> Hell, just don't FORTH it. o_O
Just wanted to see if anyone would notice. ;-)
Jim
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
andrel wrote:
> On 26-10-2010 17:23, Stephen wrote:
>> On 26/10/2010 3:11 PM, Invisible wrote:
>>> http://www.securityfocus.com/brief/411
>>>
>>> "We believe customers should feel safe shopping in our stores."
>>>
>>> "We strongly recommend that [customers] carefully review their credit
>>> card and debit card statements and other account information for
>>> unauthorized use."
>>>
>>> Uh, so which one is it then? :-P
>>
>> Both.
>>
> seconded.
Nah. If you read the article, they say basically "Someone broke in and stole
stuff. You should check your statement. But we've fixed the problem now so
you should feel safe shopping here again."
--
Darren New, San Diego CA, USA (PST)
Serving Suggestion:
"Don't serve this any more. It's awful."
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
On 27/10/2010 10:44 PM, Darren New wrote:
> Nah. If you read the article, they say basically "Someone broke in and
> stole stuff. You should check your statement. But we've fixed the
> problem now so you should feel safe shopping here again."
Heh, yeah. Like "we were so lax in our security that thousands of people
are now fraud victims. But please don't let that stop you shopping here,
it's quite safe..."
Er, right.
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
On Thu, 28 Oct 2010 09:02:46 +0100, Invisible wrote:
> On 27/10/2010 10:44 PM, Darren New wrote:
>
>> Nah. If you read the article, they say basically "Someone broke in and
>> stole stuff. You should check your statement. But we've fixed the
>> problem now so you should feel safe shopping here again."
>
> Heh, yeah. Like "we were so lax in our security that thousands of people
> are now fraud victims. But please don't let that stop you shopping here,
> it's quite safe..."
>
> Er, right.
"We learned something from the experience and have changed things because
our goal is for our customers to feel safe shopping with us. We screwed
up and we're sorry, but we've addressed the issue now."
Jim
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
>> Heh, yeah. Like "we were so lax in our security that thousands of people
>> are now fraud victims. But please don't let that stop you shopping here,
>> it's quite safe..."
>>
>> Er, right.
>
> "We learned something from the experience and have changed things because
> our goal is for our customers to feel safe shopping with us. We screwed
> up and we're sorry, but we've addressed the issue now."
See, maybe I'm just too cynical. I rather suspect that they actually
changed nothing at all, they just don't want to go bankrupt when all
their customers run away...
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
On Thu, 28 Oct 2010 16:45:42 +0100, Invisible wrote:
>>> Heh, yeah. Like "we were so lax in our security that thousands of
>>> people are now fraud victims. But please don't let that stop you
>>> shopping here, it's quite safe..."
>>>
>>> Er, right.
>>
>> "We learned something from the experience and have changed things
>> because our goal is for our customers to feel safe shopping with us.
>> We screwed up and we're sorry, but we've addressed the issue now."
>
> See, maybe I'm just too cynical. I rather suspect that they actually
> changed nothing at all, they just don't want to go bankrupt when all
> their customers run away...
You're not old enough to be that cynical. ;-)
Seriously, they may not have changed anything, but it's more likely that
they did change something and aren't disclosing the specifics of what
they changed so as to protect their customers. That's probably what I'd
do - never give the 'bad guys' any additional information they can use to
game the system or steal from people.
Jim
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
> You're not old enough to be that cynical. ;-)
O RLY?
> Seriously, they may not have changed anything, but it's more likely that
> they did change something and aren't disclosing the specifics of what
> they changed so as to protect their customers. That's probably what I'd
> do - never give the 'bad guys' any additional information they can use to
> game the system or steal from people.
Well, from what I read, they got hacked because they had little to no
security at all. (Specifically, somebody got access to their wireless
network because it was WEP, and then the traffic on that network was
completely unencrypted so they could just do whatever they wanted...)
While I imagine it's probably WPA and they probably put in a few
firewalls and a little authentication, I sorely doubt that any company
who failed to see what a spectacularly insecure system they'd built in
the first place would know how to *properly* secure their systems.
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
On Fri, 29 Oct 2010 09:53:16 +0100, Invisible wrote:
>> You're not old enough to be that cynical. ;-)
>
> O RLY?
Really. You're not even middle-aged. :-)
>> Seriously, they may not have changed anything, but it's more likely
>> that they did change something and aren't disclosing the specifics of
>> what they changed so as to protect their customers. That's probably
>> what I'd do - never give the 'bad guys' any additional information they
>> can use to game the system or steal from people.
>
> Well, from what I read, they got hacked because they had little to no
> security at all. (Specifically, somebody got access to their wireless
> network because it was WEP, and then the traffic on that network was
> completely unencrypted so they could just do whatever they wanted...)
>
> While I imagine it's probably WPA and they probably put in a few
> firewalls and a little authentication, I sorely doubt that any company
> who failed to see what a spectacularly insecure system they'd built in
> the first place would know how to *properly* secure their systems.
Unless they hired a consultant. You don't know they didn't, do you?
Jim
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
> Unless they hired a consultant. You don't know they didn't, do you?
In my [admittedly limited] experience, if you hire a consultant, they
tell you that what you really need to do is commission a project to
properly research exactly how many white surfaces your office space
should have. After all, the security vulnerabilities of your computer
system are really just the visible symptoms of incorrect feng shui.
--
http://blog.orphi.me.uk/
http://www.zazzle.com/MathematicalOrchid*
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
On Sat, 30 Oct 2010 19:52:51 +0100, Orchid XP v8 wrote:
>> Unless they hired a consultant. You don't know they didn't, do you?
>
> In my [admittedly limited] experience, if you hire a consultant, they
> tell you that what you really need to do is commission a project to
> properly research exactly how many white surfaces your office space
> should have. After all, the security vulnerabilities of your computer
> system are really just the visible symptoms of incorrect feng shui.
Not even close to my experience with computing consultants. Far more
often than not, they know if they don't bring something actually useful
to the table, they don't get paid. Consultants are people, too - they
like to eat.
Jim
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
On 30/10/2010 9:07 PM, Jim Henderson wrote:
> Consultants are people, too - they like to eat.
Some of the ones I know like to eat too much ;-)
--
Best Regards,
Stephen
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
On Sun, 31 Oct 2010 10:42:32 +0000, Stephen wrote:
> On 30/10/2010 9:07 PM, Jim Henderson wrote:
>> Consultants are people, too - they like to eat.
>
> Some of the ones I know like to eat too much ;-)
That's certainly true. :-)
Jim
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
On 31/10/2010 6:06 PM, Jim Henderson wrote:
> On Sun, 31 Oct 2010 10:42:32 +0000, Stephen wrote:
>
>> On 30/10/2010 9:07 PM, Jim Henderson wrote:
>>> Consultants are people, too - they like to eat.
>>
>> Some of the ones I know like to eat too much ;-)
>
> That's certainly true. :-)
>
I may be one of them. :-(
Living in hotels most of the year is not good for your health.
--
Best Regards,
Stephen
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
On Sun, 31 Oct 2010 18:17:21 +0000, Stephen wrote:
> On 31/10/2010 6:06 PM, Jim Henderson wrote:
>> On Sun, 31 Oct 2010 10:42:32 +0000, Stephen wrote:
>>
>>> On 30/10/2010 9:07 PM, Jim Henderson wrote:
>>>> Consultants are people, too - they like to eat.
>>>
>>> Some of the ones I know like to eat too much ;-)
>>
>> That's certainly true. :-)
>>
>>
> I may be one of them. :-(
If I were a consultant, I would be too.
> Living in hotels most of the year is not good for your health.
That's certainly true...
Jim
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
On 31/10/2010 6:33 PM, Jim Henderson wrote:
> If I were a consultant, I would be too.
Consultant/Contractor it's in the job title :-D
--
Best Regards,
Stephen
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
On Sun, 31 Oct 2010 18:57:47 +0000, Stephen wrote:
> On 31/10/2010 6:33 PM, Jim Henderson wrote:
>> If I were a consultant, I would be too.
>
> Consultant/Contractor it's in the job title :-D
Yeah, not a contractor here either. :-)
Jim
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
On 31/10/2010 8:49 PM, Jim Henderson wrote:
> On Sun, 31 Oct 2010 18:57:47 +0000, Stephen wrote:
>
>> On 31/10/2010 6:33 PM, Jim Henderson wrote:
>>> If I were a consultant, I would be too.
>>
>> Consultant/Contractor it's in the job title :-D
>
> Yeah, not a contractor here either. :-)
>
> Jim
:-D
--
Best Regards,
Stephen
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
